Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
BELLCOMM, INC.1100SeventeenthStreet,N.W. Washington,D.C.20036
SUBJECT:Manned Lunar Program Options -
Mission Equipment - Case 230
DATE:
FROM:
Sept. 29, 1967
C. Bendersky
D. R. Valley
ABSTRACT
This memorandum contains descriptive material on
the mission equipment assembled during the Manned Lunar
Program Options Study. Mission equipment refers to lunar
shelters, mobility systems, and landing vehicles for logis-
tics delivery. The equipment spectrum ranges through two
generations of Apollo equipment as well as new equipment
concepts under study. Equipment weights, capabilities,
and required modifications are included along with some
anticipated problem areas and improvement items that mightbe considered.
The information was assembled primarily through
review of NASA sponsored studies; however, results of contacts
with the centers and various Apollo contractors are also
incorporated.I
(NASA-CR-90708) _ANNED LUNAR PROGRAM
OPTKONS - MISSION EQUIPMENT (Bellcomm, Inc.)
28 p
li(NAS A r - ,,
CRORTMX ORADNUMBER)
I
N79-71546
Unclas
00/12 110_3
(CATEGORY) I
BELLCOMM. INC.1100 Seventeenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036
SUBJECT: Manned Lunar Program Options -
Mission Equipment - Case 230
D_E: Sept. 29, 1967
FROM: C. Bendersky
D. R. Valley
MEMORANDUM FOR FILE
I. 0 INTRODUCTI ON
This memorandum contains descriptive information on
the spectrum of mission equipment included in the Manned Lunar
Program Options Study. Mission equipment, as used herein,
includes shelters, mobility systems, and landing vehicles for
logistics payloads. The equipment spectrum is presented in
two basic categories--Apollo derivative equipment and new
equipment. The time and manpower limitations of the study
precluded detailed analysis of these equipment items and thuseffort was concentrated on major capabilities and equipmentweights.
The information presented herein was used as source
data for the Manned Lunar Program Options--Misslon Modes report(Reference I). The data was current up to June 30, 1966.
2.0 APOLLO DERIVATIVE EQUIPMENT
The candidate Apollo derivative equipment cannot bediscussed in terms of minor modifications because in no event
are the modifications minor in scope or cost. Table i contains
a listing of the equipment items included in this category alongwith a brief summary of the pertinent features outlined in the
following discussions.
2.1 LM Shelter
The LM shelter concept (Figure I) is the simplestproposed Apollo derivative shelter and has been considered for
use in several AAP flights. The concept combines logistics
and crew quarters in one vehicle by stripping out the present
LM ascent stage main propulsion system and adding suitable
expendables and experimental payloads. The flight plan assumesa manned Command Service Module (CSM), Lunar Orbit Rendezvous
(LOR)mode. The LM shelter is landed by remote control from
the manned CSM which is then returned to earth. The LM shelter
BELLCOMM, INC. - 3 -
2to develop a new pump-fed engine or use a converted Agena engine
and take advantage of the superior performance available.
2.4 CM Lunar Shelter
The CM could be converted into a lunar shelter (Fig-
ure 15) by removal of the heat shield, interior modification,
addition o a fuel cell power supply, storage facilities forfuel cell reactants and life support expendables, and (possibly)
some type of airlock. When compared to a LM derivative shelter,
the greatest advantage of the CM is the 36_ greater available
volume--306 ft 3 compared to 225 ft 3. Quiescent storage capa-
bility modifications will be similar to those required for
lunar orbit CM modes, possibly with the exception of larger
RTG requirements for thermal control.
2.5 LASS Concept
.... "L aThe Douglas Company (DAC) nas proposea ;me un r
Application of a Spent S-IVB Stage (LASS)" (Reference 4).
The LASS concept requires a landing gear on a S-IVB Stage.The mission is an unmanned, dlrect-fllght, using an existing
lunar beacon to obtain a precise landing location. The LASSrequires either a highly throttleable J-2 type engine (J-2X)
or a moderately throttleable J-2S with RL-10 engines added to
provide proper landing control. DAC studied several configu-rations and recommended that of Figure 4 consisting of a vertical
lander with a payload package on top. Landed payloads in theorder of 24,000 Ibs were claimed by DAC with the 1965 Saturn V
capability. This payload was based on a more optimistic AV
budget than used in this study; however, the landed payload
would still be substantial (16,000 - 19,000 ibs) using themore conservative values. An evaluation of the LASS concept
(Reference 5) was performed as part of this study effort.
2.6 MOLEM - Mobile LM Shelter
Third generation versions of LM derivative equipment
have been studied (Reference 2) where the LM shelter is fur-ther modified to become a mobile shelter (MOLEM); thereby
eliminating the need for a separate lunar roving vehicle (LRV).
Two versions were studied; a "mlnimum" change (four wheel
vehicle) and "moderate" change (four wheel vehicle plus two
wheel trailer). Figure 5 presents a line schematic of the
minimum change version.
2The Air Force is presently funding conversion of the
Agena Engine to Apollo propellants for use in 1970.
BELLCOMM, INC. - 2 -
is intended to support two men for 14 days, including e:<trn-
vehicular activity (EVA). The shelter will have 90 days
quiescent storage capability prior to usage. A 50 watt radio-
isotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) is provided for thermalcontrol. Two Allis Chalmers (2 kw) fuel cells are provided
for an electrical power system (EPS). Fuel cell reacta_-_ts are
supplied from ambient temperature high pressure bottles. In
this configuration, the LM shelter weight is app_ozimately
6700 Ib s.
Based on a later Grumman study (Reference 2), sub-
stitution of cryogenic H_!/02 storage for the p___c_c_-ktambient
temperature high pressure storage could reduce the shel_ r
weight approximately i000 Ibs I at some cost in development
time and (possibly) reliability.
2.2 LM Truck
The LM Truck concept (Figure 2) uses a modified LM
descent stage as a Lunar Logistic Vehicle (LLV). The LM ascent
stage is removed and replaced by a cargo platform. Subsystemsnow on the LM ascent stage which are necessary for landing
(e.g., reaction control system (RCS) and guidance) are added.The Truck is usually associated with the flight plan previously
described for LM Shelter (manned CSM); however, a totally
unmanned flight mode is possible with proper guidance and
navigation modification. As presently conceived, the LM T_uck
weighs 22,200 Ibs and has the same propellant capacity and
payload capability as the present LM descent stage. The LMTruck capability would benefit from an "augmented" LM devel-
opment discussed in Reference I.
2.3 SM Logistic Lander
North American Aviation (NAA) has proposed use of
the SM as a lunar logistics vehicle (LLV) (Reference 3). The
configuration (Figure 3), simply stated, puts a landing gear onthe SM. It was proposed for use in an unmanned, direct landing
mode. The concept was not critically evaluated during this
study; however, NAA claims the capability of ii,000 Ibs landed
payload. The system requires the addition of remote guidanceand control and s suitable throttling engine. So-called "con-
versions" of the present SM engine really infer a new engine
development, probably of the same magnitude as that required
for the present LM descent engine. It probably would be wiser
IAs also stated in Reference 2, much of this advantage
could be reduced by development of filament-wound tankage for
ambient high pressure storage.
BELLCOMM, INC. - 4 -
Table 2 summarizes the two configurations. The
MOLEM was designed to support two men for 14 days and traverse
250 nm in a 50 nm radius. EVA is the same as for the LM Shel-
ter mission. The flight mode is an LOR using a manned CSM to
control lunar landing. The MOLEM could be used on either a
modified LM descent stage or a LM Truck.
Pertinent additions are Allis Chalmers fuel cells
(total 8 kw), a deployable (collapsible) airlock, and a three
month quiescent storage capability. Two 50 watt RTG's are
required for quiescent storage. The study assumed high pres-
sure ambient temperature oxygen/hydrogen storage, but also
evaluated a cryogenic system which resulted in weight savings
in the order of 750 to 1,000 ibs and provided additional
volume for experimentation at some cost in development timeand (possibly) reliability.
2.7 Mobile Command Module - MOCOM
In similar fashion to the MOLEM, third generation
versions of the CM have been studied (Reference 6) to further
modify a CM shelter to provide mobility. A typical configura-
tion is presented in Figure 6. Essentially the CM is mounted
on a four wheel chassis. For the same mobility mission as
MOLEM, the MOCOM weighs about 9,500 ibs. Power is supplied
primarily by fuel cells using cryo stored reactants. An RTG
provides power needs for quiescent storage.
3.0 NEW EQUIPMENT
The new logistic supply and shelter equipment are
strictly conceptual and as such are not limited in scope as
with Apollo derivations. Evaluations of new equipment in terms
of new lunar shelters, advanced logistic carriers and lunar
mobility systems have been continuously under study by NASA.
Therefore, the systems will be discussed in terms of general
study philosophy and parametric results.
3.1 Early Lunar Shelter (ELS)
New equipment shelter capabilities were based on
the results of the recently completed Early Lunar Shelter
Study (ELS) by AiResearch, (Reference 7). The study was an
evaluation of configurations suitable for use with LM Truck
capability (10,300 ibs). The primary objective was the evaluation
and conceptual design of two-man lunar shelters for comparisonwith competing concepts such as the LM Shelter. This was
later expanded to include evaluation of three-man shelters.
BELLCOMM, INC. - 5 -
Staytime capabilities were evaluated in terms of crew size,
and duty cycles with and without EVA activity. Both two and
three man crews were considered and the EVA duty cycle con-sisted of 9 hours/day; 6 hours lone man) on a "Local Scientific
Survey Module" (LSSM) and a non-concurrent 3 hour EVA on foot
in the ELS vicinity. Based on the above, expendable consump-
tion rates were established for crew metabolism, environmentalcontrol and life support (EC/LSS), electrical power supply (EPS)
and fluid storage. It was concluded that a minimum design
volume of 500 ft 3 was desirable for a two man, 14 day mission.
Final designs were based on a 750 ft 3 volume. Basic shelter
equipments included rechargeable portable life support systems
(PLSS) (3 per man), fuel cells for EPS, cryogenic supercritical
storage for fuel cell reactants and life support gases and
Li0H for C02 removal. Figure 7 summarizes the study results.
Note the staytime capability of 50 days for two men. Figure 8
presents a typical schematic, and Figure 9 a weight breakdown
of the ELS optimized for a three man crew.
3.2 Local Scientific Survey Module (LSSM)
The LSSM is a small size vehicle used to support alocal manned survey. It is proposed for delivery with a LM
Shelter. The typical, one-man configuration shown in Figure I0
weighs in the order of 1,000 ibs, is battery powered and has
a total range capability of 200 km per mission, an operating
range of 8 km, and a minimum speed capability of 4 km per hour.
The crew sits in an open cockpit.
3.3 Mobile Laboratories - MOLAB
The moderate capacity mobile laboratory (MOLAB) con-
cept was studied in two NASA/MT contracts (References 8 and 9)
to determine configurations and capabilities of vehicles inthe 6,500 to 8,500 ib class. Designed for delivery by the LM
Truck, MOLAB was to be capable of surviving six months quies-
cent storage on the lunar surface, and then be activated to
support a two man 14 day mission with a 7 day staytime contin-
gency in a stationary mode. Figure ii presents a typical
configuration consisting of a four wheel vehicle having an
internal pressurized volume of 452 ft 3 plus an additional
122 ft 3 airlock. The MOLAB would take advantage of any sub-
system improvements evaluated in the ELS studies such as
cryogenic gas storage systems. In essence, a MOLAB relates
to an ELS as the MOLEM to the LM shelter. Staytime or experi-
mental payload is traded for mobility.
BELLCOMM, INC. - 6 -
Although the MOLAB was sized for a two man, 14 day
mission, the concept can be scaled from the parametric data
of Reference 6 to establish tradeoffs of crew size and stay-
time in terms of weight and subsystem requirements• Figure 12is a typical data sheet for a three ma_ 21 da_ 488 nm traverse
which requires a MOLAB weighing 8,400 Ibs.
3.4 Lunar Logistic Vehicle (LLV)
In the past, many versions of new LLV's using several
possible candidate propellants have been studied. For the time
span of this study, it was decided to limit the candidates to
those being used in active NASA programs; that is, earth stor-
ables of the N204/Aerozene 50 and cryogens of the L02/LH23
types. The choice between the two revolves about a tradeoffbetween 33_ better I performance, poorer length to diameter
spconfigurations, and more extensive ground support requirements
of L02/LH 2 compared to N204/Aerozene 50. However, the perform-
ance increase does provide significantly larger payload capa-
bilities, and accordingly, the cryogenic combination was
chosen for the new LLV's 3 In addition to the conventional
one stage configurations, two stage versions are also of inter-
est. A typical two stage LLV consists of a braking stage (LI)and a landing stage (LII). The advantages of staging are
(i) payload improvement, (2) the landed vehicle has a lower
center-of-gravity (reducing possible cargo unloading problems
and landing gear requirements), and (3) the braking stage (LI)
can be a general use propulsion stage for integration intoearth orbital or planetary programs (Multi-Mission Module Con-
cept). Typical configurations of single and two stage LLV'sare shown in Figures 13 and 14 as obtained from Reference I0).
4.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS
The capabilities of the mission equipment and con-cepts distributed in this memo were used as source material
for Task Order 30 study effort during the first half of 1966.
31f an acceleration of fluorine technology state-of-the-
art results in a more general level of acceptanqe of LF 2 for
use in NASA programs, and if other concomitant programs make
LF2/LH 2 engines available (RLI0 AF series) the substitution of
a LF 2 stage for a L02 stage should be considered• The stage
would have a small I improvement but a considerably bettersp
length to diameter ratio and structural mass fraction•
BELLCOMM, INC. - 7 -
For future use, the data should be reviewed and revised as
warranted. It is suggested that the authors be contacted
for additional information or for more recent study results.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to Lt. Col. P. Grosz (NASA/MTL),Col. J. R. Burke (NASA/MTV) and G. R. Woodcock (MSF¢/ROFP)
for their cooperation and assistance.
0IOI2-DRV . y
Attachments
References
Figures I - 15Tables I and 2
BELLCOMM, INC.
REFERENCES
I •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I0.
Ii.
12.
"Manned Lunar Program Options - Mission Modes," Bellcomm
TM 67-1012-5 by C. Bendersky and D. R. Valley, May 5, 1967.
"Metamorphous of AAP LEM Shelter for Lunar Mobile System
(MOLEM)," by Grumman Aircraft and Engineering Company,May i0, 1966.
"Advanced Lunar Transports and Logistics Vehicle Concepts -AS66-3," Space Division of NAA, April, 1966 (Revised
Briefing).
"Lunar Applications of a Spent S-IVB Stage (LASS),"
Douglas Aircraft Company, September, 1966.
"Critique of LASS Concept," Bellcomm Memorandum for File,C. Bendersky, June 28, 1966.
"Lunar Surface Mobility Systems Comparison and EvolutionS "tudy (MOBEV) Volume I, Technical Data--BS41295, Bendix,May 16, 1966.
"Early Lunar Shelter Design and Comparison Study," by
AiResearch Division of Garrett, February 6, 1967 (FinalReport).
"Apollo Logistics Support System (ALSS) Payloads," Boeing
Aircraft Company, Final Presentation, April, 1965.
"Apollo Logistics Support Systems (ALSS) Payloads," Bendix,
Final Report, June, 1965.
"A Comparative Design Study of Modular Stage Concepts for
Lunar Supply Operations," Volumes I-IV, TRW, December 12, 1963,CONFIDENTIAL.
"MIMOSA - Interim Lunar Exploration Data Book," Lockheed
Missiles and Space Division, June I, 1966.
"Post-Apollo Programs--SID66-153-_ (U)," NAA - Space and Informa-
tion Systems Division, March, 1966. (CONFIDENTIAL)
FIGURE 1 - LM SHELTER CONFIGURATION
?LANDING GEAR _ _'_21, c-_ _l__ ..... '-2 r-OXIDIZER TANK
: ] -- I-- THRUSTERx .'° "UlI.'-- ".
FIGURE 2 - LM TRUCK CONCEPT
i-I
Z _ __ 0
Z _ 0 o Cl N
_i _ _
00
_ Z(y _ 0
M M
M MZ r..v-1
0 • • •
o"r._
o
I
I
u-0
zo
I--
oZ
..J
-- z:_ OLLI --
I--- --c_ It-- Z
0¢..).....I
O
'_ IZ .--I
_1 I
c_J I._ C_--.I "_
I
L/JQ_
I1-
\ 'j \--_" _-i-i7 j _i'_--_ _-_i_- !...... f,
"-- .... i!x_Ld"_
.....• _.,. .__
I
_.'
FIGURE 5- MINIMUM- CHANGE MOLEM
CONFIGURATION (GRUMMAN)
__"__ / Lm Sta 200
i /Lm Sta 240Kadiator
Payload EnvelopeLm/T
_ X345.0
_ X316.0
Launch Configuration
ForwardI
i _V_ "°
Hatch 3 36M - _-_t_LT"r_-f -- 4.06M
i _ "_'- r , eCSRAp!
5 Band Dish Antenna I r_ L°°_adA_itat:r na
• _. RTG "__¢/'Ir i___.,) _ 2_.03M DIA
I _ .305 M I,t------5.15M-
System External Layout
FIGURE 6- MOCOM CONCEPT
Z N _
"_ _ z
N =
M _
_ M 2;
N
Z
O
0
r.:.l
Z
r,.)
r_
r_
r/3.
2;
2_
r_
O
r,.?
0
Z
O
v
_0_ r...)
,q
O
I
II
cP
Z
E
N8Z
N
So,1
_ u_
r_
ot_
II
0>
0
<
0
!
r..q
Z
o
o _ _
Z
m O_
mN_Mr_
q
II
.<
S.<
.<
O
m
M
MN
Nr_
Z
!
I
M
0N
-_j/\
_r_
Z©
E_
Z©
q_
!
ira(
Launch Configuration
- -- ....... 1 I l
/4.47M
___ _ ECS Radiator-_ _ VECS Radiator
.. _P Antenna__ 4 Ft 5 Band !
_. _ I _ Parab°lic _ --_ \ _ / F]O
, _LULl o eHO-- __@-- ._M Normal Gro Cle r n
System External Layout '
FIGURE 11 - TYPICAL MOLAB CONFIGURATION (BENDIX)
4 WHEEL DRIVE TYPE.
MANNED ROVING VEHICLE CABIN - THREE MAN Date I Rev
May 66 lI
GENERAL PERFORMANCE
General Performance
Item 7
Crew Size
Staytime (Nominal), DaysRange (Nominal), kinSpeed (Average), kph
Experiment Power (Nominal), kw-hrScientffie Payload (Max.), kg
System Mass, kg (not incl. payload)
321
90010
112320
3,810
Note: Staytime shown is in addition to 7 days emergencylayover with no travel.
LAUNCH CONFIGURATION (Dimensions in Meters)
f3.0
f LOR DOCKING STRUCTURE
- _ "" / °-"-""_ .."-PAYLOAD J
?'1 [ _" _" ENVELOPE/ /' VY >_---_"(V ' RE_
l /,i_ 6.t'
MASS SUMMARYMass Summary (Kilograms)
Item
NonexpendablesStructure
Power Supply
Mobility
Life SupportAstrix)nics
Total Noncxpendablcs
Expendable.q (Usable & Unusable)
H2 Capacity (Max.)
02 Capacity (Max.)Power
Metabolic (Incl. cabin loss)
Others (food, LiOll, etc.)
M&s8
636
220
1,485324
320
88
347
216
174
2,985
Total Expendables (Max.) 825
System Man 3,810
FIGURE 12 - TYPICAL "PARAMETRIC DATA SHEET
FOR A 3-MAN - 21 DAY MOLAB
iif
,/
11_ ° °.°
J
dd
¢J
2_
0
\
f
i
//,/
q'_,_
-_ I _ o
_ 0 _ o
- ._ _oee_
W
0._J
0
I'--
..I
CO
..I
I--
I
r_"
Id.
\
\
I_CARGO FLOOR
LH 2
H2LUNAR SURFACE AT TOUCH
RL-10 ENGINE
FIGURE 14 - TYPICAL TWO STAGE
CRYOGENIC LUNAR LOGISTICS VEHICLE
<
O
Z
0
Z0
d
Z0
0
Z<
0r_
I
LO
E_o9
o']
E_H
H
O
E_
_9
H
OO
o9
©O
¢00
_c_
•r-I .b0
O @Z_
4m
(D
O
4-3
.ml
o
@
r-tr-_
@O
©
©
®
H
OO
<D
43
_hOJO_
(UHO
O_>
_Hr-_
_[-mH
_C_40
b_Or--{
cI O ©
•_ O
(D._
4m _ (U
_ CU (D4m
_w
H
O_H
OO
O
OOP-L_OCO©
4-3O
O_OO ©CO_-_
Oq
O_<OmO
I
mOO
•_ ©H4m
©
4-)_-_0 (D
_+._._
"0
O
Nm
H
Orgy
Od
©o
(1)g_©
(1)
OO
O
O
O
.--t
r--t.M
O
0
o4-),-H _9
(u
uh
o
_m
O__:_._
LO
o
©
©
(D
00
O_
0
0
(D
©
(Dr-I
_00
0
o.o
(D._
t_) o
<O
©
O_
r--t i
_4 .,-4r--t
r/]
4m
@
4-3
©
4-3
.O_
C_.,--t
o
r-tr--t
O
O
(D
OO
gr-t
O
r-t O
(0_:J.,-4
o
4-)
_H
o (u
(D
C_
.,-4
CO
©oc_o
o
o
o
®
®
O O OO O OO OOO
_ kD
c_ O o•r l 43bD® O
• c0•_ (13 ._
r-I or-I,_'O hi) _O
O O (b om4r-_ m-t
O P_ _
c_ C: rO'O_4_ O O O O
¢_- > <TO
g3.r-I
®
O _0
•_ .,-Ib'"O
09,--I
_CO
_0 (D
.,-t
faD_
.o bOto
_._
_9 _JrH
-1-3I or'-I
r_ N?
H
HE_
0
0
0.,-4
cu .,4
(b
©4-) ©
°(u
bO•r4 (b
o i_ "_r..) :._ "_(D
>
(D0
%
r_ Cd
oo
b_
0 r._°"
© _: ¢>
_I _ .,--I
O,JL.rh 0
j:: I _ ma-_ oo 0_:_•.-4 Oh r_
E
0L_
0 OJ
•,-4 0 r-_o L(h CO ", ._
rJ'] b- b- Oh0 (Y_,--I O4
0L_
'_ O] 0 C,]L.(h 0 ,,.-4
o9 * _-_ _
.,-I Oh ,-_ 0 L._ 0 ._ -..J" • ',.0_:: _ OL_h O9 t-- t"-- Oh ,--_ <0
O9
[_ 0
0 ",'4 ©r-_ 0 4m© 09
0 0o3 0
0
0 09 .. 0 %
o_ ._ ¢> jz: I_ © _ p. ,-4 _ "
o o _ b_ .- _ _ _4 _
0 o _
Od
E_
BELLCOMM, INC.
Subject: Manned Lunar Program Options -Mission Equipment - Case 230
.From: C. Bendersky
D. R. Valley
Distribution List
NASA Headquarters
Messrs. D. A. Beattie/MTL
J. R. Burke/MTV
P. E. Culbertson/MLA
J. H. Disher/MLD
F. P. Dixon/MTY
P. Grosz/MTL
E. W. HalI/MTSR. W. Johnson/MTL
T. A. Keegan/MA-2
D. R. Lord/MTD
M. J. Raffensperger/MTE
L. Relffel/MA-6
W. H. Rock/MLR
A. D. Schnyer/MTV
G. S. Trimble, Jr./MT
J. H. Turnock/MA-4 J
M. G. Waugh/MTP
Ames Research Center
Mr. L. Roberts/202-5 (2)
Marshall Space Flight Center
Mr. G. R. Woodcock/R-AS-VL
Manned Spacecraft Center
Mr. W. E. Stoney, Jr./ET
Bellcomm, Inc.
Messrs. F. G. Allen
G. M. Anderson
A. P. Boysen, Jr.
C. J. ByrneC. L. Davis
J. P. Downs
D. R. HagnerP. L. Havenstein
W. C. HittingerB. T. Howard
D. B. James
K. E. Martersteck
R. K. McFarland
J. Z. Menard
I. D. Nehama
G. T. 0rrok
I. M. Ross
R. L. Selden
R. V. Sperry
J. M. Tschirgi
R. L. WagnerJ. E. Waldo
All Members Division lO1
Department 1023Central File
Library
